Mark Bina and Amy Cotton Peterson, both partners at Quarles & Brady LLP who were not involved in the case, said the decision is important for licensing boards across the country.

“This ruling confirms that boards cannot use their regulatory powers in a protectionist or anti-competitive way,” they said in a joint statement.

“It also confirms that if the FTC charges an antitrust violation, the board cannot use state-action immunity as a defense unless it is clear that the activity is clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy and the state government actively supervised the board’s decision,” the statement added.